|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 17, 2009 2:26:18 GMT -5
"And, either way, I'd much rather have my children indoctrinated into the scientific method and logical pursuit of science than a "theory" that encourages blind faith and ignoring scientific facts."
First of all, that's your personal opinion. Second, Evolution is classified as a "theory" so it is just as low on the bar as you just asserted Intelligent Design to be. Third, why not have it fair and have them listen to both "theories" and let your kids decide? That's all the Intelligent Design people want as far as I know.
"But, hey, maybe that's just me."
In the context of the statement I took this to be a completely unnecessary cheap shot. If it isn't then I misread you.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 17, 2009 3:30:42 GMT -5
Okay, I found the letter, this is Thomas Jefferson's reply to the letter that the members of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to him, I didn't post their letter because it's very long, and people would probably skip over it, but if I'm accused of taking the letter out of context, then I will happily post it on here. Here is the letter:
Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.
Washington, January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802
|
|
|
Post by Joppi on Sept 17, 2009 5:27:33 GMT -5
But what if the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe? Shouldn't he also be in the science classroom as well? First, I know, I was going to put "Imo" but I felt it didn't mesh well with the rest of my sentence. Second, NO, NO NO NO, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. "Intelligent Design" is a layman's theory, meaning it has no scientific evidence and it just something some guy made up. It's on the same level as my theory that invisible green unicows live in the shadow of Pluto and are the cause of a woman's monthly period. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning a theory that has a lot of evidence and is generally considered true (see: germs, gravity, etc). It's not a "fact" because it can't be tested in the same way other theories can (if it's true, then it already happened, though we can and have proven that micro-evolution exists). Third, again, why don't we also teach kids about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What makes Intelligent design more deserving to be taught when there's no proof of either of them? You're going to say I made a cheap shot when you spent one of your posts comparing Evolutionists to Nazis?
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Sept 17, 2009 14:43:09 GMT -5
Alright BM: What happened before life on earth began? Also that is not a solid foundation BECAUSE they don't know what happened before life on earth began, and are ignorant as to what could have happened, therefore they have a "loose end". Plus, I'd like to know how they found out beyond all doubt that NO life existed before life on earth. We observe stars being formed, and probably planets in other solar systems. We know the requirements for life (water, primarily). We know that when a planet is created the constitution of the planet does not support life. Therefore there could not have been life on earth at the moment of it's creation. Also, I'm just going to reiterate what joppi said but in different words: Intelligent design is not a theory. At least, not in the same way that evolution is a theory. You're confusing definitions. A scientific theory is something based on and backed up by facts. Usually it is testable and the results can be reproduced consistently. That is the definition of theory being used in the "theory" of evolution. Not theory as in a general belief. And it is interesting to note something he mentioned; in the study of organism with a very short lifespan, such as flies or bacteria, evolution can actually be observed (e.g. bacteria adapting to medicine so that it is no longer effective)
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Sept 17, 2009 15:38:31 GMT -5
Why is it people of faith always need the most definitive proof of anything scientific? I find it ironic.
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Sept 17, 2009 15:41:22 GMT -5
But what if the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe? Shouldn't he also be in the science classroom as well? First, I know, I was going to put "Imo" but I felt it didn't mesh well with the rest of my sentence. Second, NO, NO NO NO, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. "Intelligent Design" is a layman's theory, meaning it has no scientific evidence and it just something some guy made up. It's on the same level as my theory that invisible green unicows live in the shadow of Pluto and are the cause of a woman's monthly period. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning a theory that has a lot of evidence and is generally considered true (see: germs, gravity, etc). It's not a "fact" because it can't be tested in the same way other theories can (if it's true, then it already happened, though we can and have proven that micro-evolution exists). Third, again, why don't we also teach kids about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What makes Intelligent design more deserving to be taught when there's no proof of either of them? You're going to say I made a cheap shot when you spent one of your posts comparing Evolutionists to Nazis? Intelligent design is a joke, it's made up by people who want to cling to the god theory but are embarrassed to use the word god. If you believe in god that's fine, but not start making stuff up and instead of saying god say things like some intelligent force or being or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by wottesworthsgurl on Sept 17, 2009 17:00:11 GMT -5
Eh yash just stateing my opinion. And hanz was confused, do you belive is evoultion or not? You say your atheist or something right
|
|
|
Post by yash3ahuja on Sept 17, 2009 17:57:12 GMT -5
Yep, I'm athiest
|
|
|
Post by wottesworthsgurl on Sept 17, 2009 18:27:55 GMT -5
Was talking about hanz lol but ok(cough) sorry couldent help it
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Sept 18, 2009 6:18:06 GMT -5
I'm an Atheist for the most part, but I'm open to talking about the possibly existence of a high power, however, I think blind Faith is bad and to rule out evolution because of it is even worse.
|
|
|
Post by xLATERALISx on Sept 18, 2009 21:58:14 GMT -5
i would think it is safe to say that your agnostic. that's what i consider myself because i believe that anything is possible. but i have i very hard time with Christianity and the denial of the idea of evolution.
|
|
|
Post by decayedsenses on Sept 18, 2009 22:04:23 GMT -5
omg joppi.......i could go on about each topic. on and on .............and on.lol wanna read a book?? ask me my opinions.lol
|
|
|
Post by decayedsenses on Sept 18, 2009 22:40:58 GMT -5
i'm agnostic as well.......and agree with decayswife. i'll just keep this very simple.
same sex marriages: those people will love each other whether there is a piece of paper involved or not. so why not just let them be free and have the choice to do as they please. this is supposed to be a free society after all isn't it?? marriage is no longer a religious experience and can be freely enjoyed by everyone. why should people who have the same body parts be excluded?? they still feel the same.
abortion: this is a tough one and will be debated till the end of time. there will never be any change in the topic. i personally believe that it shouldn't be done, but in certain circumstance becomes a life saving option. sometimes we make mistakes, no bodies perfect.......sometimes those mistakes can ruin our lives. why bring a child into a world where they don't have a fighting chance?? in the case of a pregnent young teenager who's hormones are running wild and she doesn't have the maturity level to be able to deal with safge sex let alone such a life changing event. same with the boy who impregnates her. how can we expect that these two will be able to raise a productive member of society who will be able to give back and make the world a better place. what about the case of a child who is going to be born with a severe handicap?? is it fair for them to go through life never experiencing that which the rest of us will?? the case of a rape that results in a pregnancy. in the end....it's the woman body and it's her right to do with it as she pleases. does a fetus have consciousness?? there's another good topic. i think our conscious is shaped by our experience....our ability to learn, adapt, etc etc. anyway...that's for another dabate.lol i dunno....abortion is one of the major debatable topics of all time and will never be resolved. just remember......for the most part....at an equal standpoint from two opposing opinions, there is no real right and wrong, just opposing sides.
gun control: for me this is cut and dry. destroy em all. we have no need for tools that are designed to kill each other. it is NOT in any way shape or form my right to kill someone!! the human race is bad enough at destroying ourselves without tools to help us do it.
religion: my personal favorite.lol in my wanders on earth i've dealt a great deal in this topic. raised christian no one could ever answer the questions i sought answers to. i first started asking when i was around 5 or 6 years old. by 9 i renounced all religion. after years of denial, study and trying to find myself i ended up resolving to say that there is no answer. i'm agnostic.....i don't know everything in the universe and will never pretend to know the answers i have no personal proof of. anything is possible...the universe is a big damn place and my knowledge of it is very minimal when compared in size.lol
when one has justified in their own head what is right and wrong, where they stand with that, and what actions they do based on those opinions.......there is no debating it. it just is what it is. they are who they are.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 19, 2009 4:46:15 GMT -5
BM, I would like if this issue could be moved into a separate thread so that I don't have to slog through all of the other issues in here that I'm not trying to debate, and everybody that wants to say something on this issue doesn't get in someone else's way.
"But what if the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe? Shouldn't he also be in the science classroom as well?"
No, because that is the belief of one individual; not of an entire social group. Plus, they used to teach Evolution, ID, and the big bang theory side by side when our parents were kids, why not now?
"Second, NO, NO NO NO, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. "Intelligent Design" is a layman's theory, meaning it has no scientific evidence and it just something some guy made up. It's on the same level as my theory that invisible green unicows live in the shadow of Pluto and are the cause of a woman's monthly period. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning a theory that has a lot of evidence and is generally considered true (see: germs, gravity, etc). It's not a "fact" because it can't be tested in the same way other theories can (if it's true, then it already happened, though we can and have proven that micro-evolution exists)."
I will try to do some more research on ID (Intelligent Design) and see if you're telling the truth on that subject. Also I noticed you say "micro", not "macro" in your previous comment. Evolution does not bank everything on micro-evolution; rather it banks everything on macro-evolution, as I understand it, so IF I understand it right, then it doesn't matter much if they have found evidence of micro-evolution. Plus, ID supports micro-evolution in species (dog into wolf, that sort of evolution) and would especially support adaptation. I bet you that if I looked I could find some quotes from prominent ID supporters that would prove that they support micro-evolution. And if they don't, personally I do believe in MICRO, not macro-evolution.
"You're going to say I made a cheap shot when you spent one of your posts comparing Evolutionists to Nazis?"
You are putting words into my mouth Joppi, I said a few times that I wasn't comparing them to Nazis, I was only pointing out that Hitler was the one (if I remember) who said that if you have control of the classroom, then you have control of the country, THEN I pointed out that they (evolutionists) have control of the classroom. That is not comparing them to Nazis.
"We observe stars being formed, and probably planets in other solar systems.
We know the requirements for life (water, primarily).
We know that when a planet is created the constitution of the planet does not support life.
Therefore there could not have been life on earth at the moment of it's creation."
That has no pertinence to my question. It doesn't adress any of my arguments that you had highlighted. I was asking what happened before life on earth began, not what happened ON earth before life began, my point was that Evolution does not provide an answer to what happened in the Universe before life on earth began, and "starts" the story of history with life on earth, omitting every event that happened before life began as immaterial EXCEPT, it seems, the events that started life on earth.
|
|
|
Post by Fober-dud on Sept 19, 2009 4:47:55 GMT -5
"Why is it people of faith always need the most definitive proof of anything scientific? I find it ironic."
Hanz, you haven't said anything that was not just personal subjective emotion. Everything you've said has just been personal opinion. This is a debate, and we're compelled to try to support what we say with facts, or at least reasons behind why we have come to that conclusion. Everything you've said (that I've read) has consisted of cheap shots against people who you disagree with, or of flat accusations of people's motives and actions, or of just saying that somebody IS wrong, without bringing anything else to the table.
"Intelligent design is a joke, it's made up by people who want to cling to the god theory but are embarrassed to use the word god. If you believe in god that's fine, but not start making stuff up and instead of saying god say things like some intelligent force or being or whatever."
This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Check this out:
Evolution is a joke, it's made up by people who want to cling to the evolutionary theory but are embarrassed to say that things evolved from goo. If you believe in Evolution that's fine, but not start making stuff up and instead of saying Evolution say things like some goo made us what we are or whatever.
All I've done is made your statement switch sides from an Evolutionary point of view to that of Intelligent Design. And it makes evolutionists look like fools, just like your statements regarding ID'ers.
If you can't respect the other side, why not keep your mouth shut and let other people who will be respectful talk? I disagree with probably EVERYONE here on where I stand (even broly D8b), most notably BM & Joppi on the debate, but I played with Joppi yesterday and had a very fun time. Today I asked BM if I could play with him. Even though I disagree with them on this (and probably other) points, I still respect them as persons and try not to insult them, even if they disagree with me. I am still personally on my road to discovering the truth, and don't just swallow everything I hear from ID'ers and right-wingers and what not.
I just don't see how ALL of this life on earth could have just "evolved" from one cell. All of these animals, perfectly suited for where they live and what they do, plants that quite literally keep us alive, proper animal food chain (while animals were evolving too, I would presume), perfect positioning regarding the sun, not too hot, not too cold (although that is more a question of whether God exists or not), I don't see how you could get all that with random mutations. The odds on all that happening as well as it did have to be terrible. Thoughts from the fob.
|
|